Manning or Bradshaw?

[deljzc]

Well said,

now for me I would take a playoff QB over a regular season QB, even though most would pick Manning without blinking.............

From a statistical analysis standpoint however, it's hard to conclusively say that.

The sample size of playoff games for both is very small as compared to their regular seasons (about 1 playoff game per 10 regular season games). Is the ability to perform better in playoff games a skill or just a random statistical event? If Peyton had 20, 40 or 60 more playoff games, wouldn't he eventually get closer to his "average" performance? And if Bradshaw had 20, 40 or 60 more playoff games, he probably would fall back towards his mean as well.

One of the toughest things about football is the idea of a "clutch, playoff performer". Some quarterbacks only have 10 playoff games in their career. Is it really fair to use that small a sample size and definitively say "they are no good in the playoffs" or "they are clutch in the playoffs".

The regular season, by definition of a greater sample size, more accurately represents a players' ability. NOT the post-season.

It's an interesting debate. Personally, I am tentative to call anyone "clutch" or "not clutch" in football. There are so many variables in a game and so few playoff game opportunities that it's impossible to statistically prove facts like that.

 

[Drink IRON City]

From a statistical analysis standpoint however, it's hard to conclusively say that.

The sample size of playoff games for both is very small as compared to their regular seasons (about 1 playoff game per 10 regular season games). Is the ability to perform better in playoff games a skill or just a random statistical event? If Peyton had 20, 40 or 60 more playoff games, wouldn't he eventually get closer to his "average" performance? And if Bradshaw had 20, 40 or 60 more playoff games, he probably would fall back towards his mean as well.

One of the toughest things about football is the idea of a "clutch, playoff performer". Some quarterbacks only have 10 playoff games in their career. Is it really fair to use that small a sample size and definitively say "they are no good in the playoffs" or "they are clutch in the playoffs".

The regular season, by definition of a greater sample size, more accurately represents a players' ability. NOT the post-season.

It's an interesting debate. Personally, I am tentative to call anyone "clutch" or "not clutch" in football. There are so many variables in a game and so few playoff game opportunities that it's impossible to statistically prove facts like that.

I hear you on the statistical proof. But, the playoff numbers do count, in the playoff scinerio. Playoff numbers, against playoff numbers. What I'm saying, its time to shine as these games have a higher degree of importance. Win, keep playing, lose yaz out.
Regular season, ho hum, you lumber along with less intensity. Comparing Manning & BRADSHAW, using playoff numbers, are a fair comparison. Maybe with time and quantity, their respective numbers do start to mirror their regular season game. But, to get those
quanity of games, in a playoff mode, the QB would be playing until he is near 75yrs old, or about when Jim Plunkett retired.


Salute the nation

 

[steelermania]

I would have pretty good stats if I was throwing to Jerry Rice. ****, Rice would have made Bubby Brister look like a HOFer

You do realize that Montana won 2 Super Bowls before Rice got there, including an 18-1 season where the Steelers were the only team to beat him.

 

[steelermania]

Were any of those guys 4-0? And did any of them single-handedly win any of their Super Bowls?

Of course not, although Williams' performance was one of the best by a qb in any Super Bowl.